Peter Sorotokin wrote:
> For your reference we are in the "Last Call" stage right now. "Call
> for Implementations" comes _after_ that, so discussion happens first
> and implementors don't waste time doing something that won't happen.
> To advance any particular feature to the next stage SVG WG requires
> two implementations of that feature. Only then comes "Call for Review
> of a Proposed Recommendation" (at which point criticism about the
> lack of implementations would have been entirely appropriate).
Ah, I'm sorry, that comment was aimed at SVG 1.1, which has by my
knowledge not an appropriate test suite and has not been tested
interoperably, nor implemented that way.
> "Implement it first and standardize it later" that you seem to
> suggest is a recipe for HTML mess all over again. Once features are
> implemented at production quality, it is too expensive to change them
> to correspond to the standard. Standardization and implementation
> should go hand in hand.
I'm not sure if that's possible. If they go hand in hand it's perhaps
only possible when one product is involved. Otherwise you will create
problems the moment you start and when there isn't created a suitable
test suite those issues might never be resolved.
> Where I agree with you is that the standard is not a place for
> "functional" innovation, we should just standardize functionality
> that is well understood.
And I believe that's not the case here.
>> Also, if they bring out specifications. They should be properly
>> tested and don't have conflicts with other specifications, like
>> CSS.
>
> The specification is going to be properly tested, according to
> general W3C and SVG WG rules.
Just like SVG 1.1 or 1.0?
> I disagree there is any conflict with CSS spec. There seems to be
> some conflict with the CSS vision of a particular invited expert of
> the CSS WG (Ian), who at some points (feel free to correct me) said
> that XSL:FO, SMIL and XForms should either not had happened or had
> been redesigned from scratch.
I think he's right in his point that we can't really use them on the
web. And that they are therefore quite useless. However, the SVG WG did
redefine some things, like making 'px' optional, which creates possible
future problems with CSS.
I think it's quite strange SVG has been created without inviting at
least some or one of the people from the CSS WG to talk about
introducing new properties, how they should work outside the SVG scope,
etc. Since mixing namespaces is, especially in the new UAs, common practice.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>